Trial delayed in Oracle’s Android lawsuit against Google

A pretrial order issued earlier this month indicated that Oracle's lawsuit against Google would likely head to a jury trial in March. In a new filing, Judge William Alsup decided to delay the trial until Oracle can propose a reasonable methodology for measuring the damages.

Android is also under siege from rival smartphone vendors that have issued their own patent claims against the operating system. Google has spent a considerable amount of money over the past year assembling a formidable defensive patent portfolio that will help insulate its mobile operating system from patent litigation.

One of the most contentious issues that has arisen in Oracle's litigation against Google is the methodology for computing damages. Judge Alsup has been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the proposals issued by both parties in the dispute. In the latest order, he complains that Oracle has twice "advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers."

Judge Alsup believes that the trial will take approximately two months when it finally occurs.

This litigation as a primary means of competition bull**** is getting old.

They are not even competing, as ORCL is too preoccupied with private equity style squeeze on their existing businesses for short term profits to start their own client platform. They are now resorting to blackmailing other players in the industry to monetize some of their previous acquisitions.

Except this has nothing to do with this court case, this is about Google using property without wanting to pay the license.

It's perfectly fine to use property without paying for it when the leader of the company publicly approves of such use, as Sun did.

There's not a lot of difference in how Google is using Java technology than how a lot of businesses use the technology. Sun wanted such users, Sun wanted to grow the ecosystem. Oracle simply wants to squeeze every penny from every Sun technology, often destroying it in the process.

I suspect the reason Apple abandoned ZFS, and will now be roundly trumped by the Windows 8 filesystem was due to fears of similar litigation from Oracle. Sun approved of the use, Oracle took over and got all lawsuity.

When Sun owned Java, they congratulated Google on using the technology. It wasn't until Oracle took over that claims of improper use materialized. This alone could get Google off the hook. Google's purhcase of a myriad of IBM patents might also force Oracle to back down.

I see this ending in settlement in which no real money is paid to Oracle. Though there is the very real possibility of outright victory for Google, which is perhaps why they're not interested in settling. As for an Oracle victory, I'd put very long odds on their winning anything other than a very minor award. Were that to happen, it would be tied up in appeals for half a decade.

I am no huge fan of Oracle but I think it's pretty clear that the Android team (pre-Google acquisition? I guess the Danger team?) used Java tech/libs unlicensed, and knew all along that they were on very shaky legal ground to do so. Now that Android is huge and used in hundreds of devices, it's no surprise that they are getting taken to task for it.

I am no huge fan of Oracle but I think it's pretty clear that the Android team (pre-Google acquisition? I guess the Danger team?) used Java tech/libs unlicensed, and knew all along that they were on very shaky legal ground to do so. Now that Android is huge and used in hundreds of devices, it's no surprise that they are getting taken to task for it.

And the head of Sun approved of of this use, posting as much publicly on Sun's website.

Oracle knew this could be disastrous to their case as legal doctrine typically prohibits a litigant from perusing damages for a use they had previously allowed.

Oracle tried to scrub the web clean of that posting. Of course, the internet rarely forgets.

I am no huge fan of Oracle but I think it's pretty clear that the Android team (pre-Google acquisition? I guess the Danger team?) used Java tech/libs unlicensed, and knew all along that they were on very shaky legal ground to do so. Now that Android is huge and used in hundreds of devices, it's no surprise that they are getting taken to task for it.

And the head of Sun approved of of this use, posting as much publicly on Sun's website.

Oracle knew this could be disastrous to their case as legal doctrine typically prohibits a litigant from perusing damages for a use they had previously allowed.

Oracle tried to scrub the web clean of that posting. Of course, the internet rarely forgets.

If it was my multi-billion dollar business, I'd try to get something more firm than a post on a website. And I'd try to get it before developing my entire platform on the tech in question. But hey, we'll see how the court case goes!

What I don't understand is why Oracle wants to lose business. Google's use of Java technology in Android means more Java developers. More Java developers means a greater likelihood of people promoting Java in business, which results in greater use of Java technology and potentially more licenses (software, support, etc.) sold by Oracle. Basically, it behooves Oracle to have as many Java developers are possible. And yet they're trying to _REDUCE_ that number. Why doesn't Oracle just sell the company if they truly don't want any business?

I am no huge fan of Oracle but I think it's pretty clear that the Android team (pre-Google acquisition? I guess the Danger team?) used Java tech/libs unlicensed, and knew all along that they were on very shaky legal ground to do so. Now that Android is huge and used in hundreds of devices, it's no surprise that they are getting taken to task for it.

And the head of Sun approved of of this use, posting as much publicly on Sun's website.

Oracle knew this could be disastrous to their case as legal doctrine typically prohibits a litigant from perusing damages for a use they had previously allowed.

Oracle tried to scrub the web clean of that posting. Of course, the internet rarely forgets.

If it was my multi-billion dollar business, I'd try to get something more firm than a post on a website. And I'd try to get it before developing my entire platform on the tech in question. But hey, we'll see how the court case goes!

Well it isn't your multi million dollar business and you may be waiting indefinitely...

Oracle is damaging their own product and patient portfolio on this one. By causing delays, they are damaging their case to since the patent office is reexamining their patients and it isn't going that well for them.

I am no huge fan of Oracle but I think it's pretty clear that the Android team (pre-Google acquisition? I guess the Danger team?) used Java tech/libs unlicensed, and knew all along that they were on very shaky legal ground to do so. Now that Android is huge and used in hundreds of devices, it's no surprise that they are getting taken to task for it.

"However, Google goes even further in this brief. Google argues that Cockburn never investigated or understood the real deal on the table between Sun and Google back in 2006. In a supplemental filing Google provides a Sun slide presentation [PDF] on the discussions, and it is fascinating. It would appear from the presentation that Sun wanted the deal with Google badly. It is also clear that the deal on the table would have been Java compatible."

There is also the issue that much of what Google based Android on came from the open source version of Java. Its really hard to argue theft of IP when you are giving it away. I don't think this lawsuit will amount to much of anything. I just wish that Google would have gone with Python instead of Java. I like Python better and there is no one trying to put their hand in your pocket.

Except this has nothing to do with this court case, this is about Google using property without wanting to pay the license.

It's perfectly fine to use property without paying for it when the leader of the company publicly approves of such use, as Sun did.

There's not a lot of difference in how Google is using Java technology than how a lot of businesses use the technology. Sun wanted such users, Sun wanted to grow the ecosystem. Oracle simply wants to squeeze every penny from every Sun technology, often destroying it in the process.

I suspect the reason Apple abandoned ZFS, and will now be roundly trumped by the Windows 8 filesystem was due to fears of similar litigation from Oracle. Sun approved of the use, Oracle took over and got all lawsuity.

When Sun owned Java, they congratulated Google on using the technology. It wasn't until Oracle took over that claims of improper use materialized. This alone could get Google off the hook. Google's purhcase of a myriad of IBM patents might also force Oracle to back down.

I see this ending in settlement in which no real money is paid to Oracle. Though there is the very real possibility of outright victory for Google, which is perhaps why they're not interested in settling. As for an Oracle victory, I'd put very long odds on their winning anything other than a very minor award. Were that to happen, it would be tied up in appeals for half a decade.

Quote:

"What we've actually been asked to do by [Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin] is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Google engineer Tim Lindholm wrote in the August 2010 email to Android chief Andy Rubin. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

Apparently you and Google's engineer have a big disagreement over whether they needed a license for Android.

Engineers aren't lawyers.

It's not a software engineers job to know whether their company needs a license. After all, much of what Google used was under an open source license. Clearly these engineers expressed a desire to retain Java technology, but that is where their expertise began and ended.

On the other hand, it definitely was the job of Sun's CEO to realize that publicly applauding the use of his company's IP by another firm would immediately trigger estopple.

This was not a press release from a minor functionary in a subdivision of the company. It was a public pronouncement by the CEO of the company that then owned the technology. It was a statement that Oracle tried to scour it from the internet.

I suspect that singular statement did more damage to Oracle's case than any other factor. In a paragraph, Sun's CEO severely diminished any hope of Oracle ever receiving a substantive damage award from Google. Mix with that Google's continual victories against Oracle on the patent front and their purchase of patents in Oracle's area of expertise, and it's hard to see Oracle coming out of this with anything other than a mountain of legal bills.

My read is that Ellison seems to have made this a personal grudge. It therefor seems unlikely he'll be willing to settle. I guess he'll just have to have his hat handed to him in a public courtroom.

Apparently you and Google's engineer have a big disagreement over whether they needed a license for Android.

Engineers aren't lawyers.

It's not a software engineers job to know whether their company needs a license. After all, much of what Google used was under an open source license. Clearly these engineers expressed a desire to retain Java technology, but that is where their expertise began and ended.

Hardly. The Java version which Google started from was built on a subset of the Apache Harmony Java implementation, licensed under an Apache license.

My read is that Ellison seems to have made this a personal grudge. It therefor seems unlikely he'll be willing to settle. I guess he'll just have to have his hat handed to him in a public courtroom.

Actually, anyone read the Steve Jobs book? We all know the quote about "destroying Android" without having to read the book, but the book also makes apparent just how good of friends him and Ellison were.

Ellison has the money and does come across as the kind of person who would pursue this just to help his friend's vendetta.

What I don't understand is why Oracle wants to lose business. Google's use of Java technology in Android means more Java developers. More Java developers means a greater likelihood of people promoting Java in business, which results in greater use of Java technology and potentially more licenses (software, support, etc.) sold by Oracle. Basically, it behooves Oracle to have as many Java developers are possible. And yet they're trying to _REDUCE_ that number. Why doesn't Oracle just sell the company if they truly don't want any business?

Didn't you know? Larry is digging a huge hole for Java. Alienating Java developers from Oracle in masses. They all were for open Java before they bought Sun, but now they've changed their tune.Their own Java products were so bad, that they had to buy BEA to have something good in the middleware. The quality of service has dropped after they acquired Sun. Licensing costs shot up.

Apparently you and Google's engineer have a big disagreement over whether they needed a license for Android.

Frankly, that statement has meaning for a person that knows how Java is licensed that is other than a person that does not.Licensing Java means being able to call your implementation of JVM Java(TM - aka access to trademark) and Java TCK.

Thus there was Harmony and Kava, that were strictly JVM spec driven JVM's. Dalvik is a very different beast.

And of-course there is J2ME, the thing that fragments Java so much that Android could never be able to. Hell, they should first come up with something that will battle fragmentation on their own platform, bfore calling out the other guys - taht saved Java on the saxophone*.(Code from Java software to Android is rather portable, while Java to J2ME is absolutely unportable)

* - reality is that if it weren't for Android Java on a smartphone would be a long forgotten past.

My read is that Ellison seems to have made this a personal grudge. It therefor seems unlikely he'll be willing to settle. I guess he'll just have to have his hat handed to him in a public courtroom.

Actually, anyone read the Steve Jobs book? We all know the quote about "destroying Android" without having to read the book, but the book also makes apparent just how good of friends him and Ellison were.

Ellison has the money and does come across as the kind of person who would pursue this just to help his friend's vendetta.

Steve Jobs, to me, always seemed like a profoundly negative person--he was constantly complaining and moaning that somebody was eating, or trying to eat, his piece of cake. I think that's the reason the Mac has remained in the ~5% world-wide market share bracket all of these years--decapitating the fledgling Mac clone companies before they could get started and really growing, tying OS X exclusively to Apple-branded hardware, were and are among his chief "negativisms" for the Mac as a platform--in my opinion, of course.

It always looked to me that Jobs enshrouded the Mac platform in so many prolific negatives that the only way for Apple to survive as a company was for Apple to transition away from being Apple Computer into becoming Apple Something Else--which is of course exactly what happened. Great for Apple shareholders--not so great for the Mac platform except for one thing: had Apple not successfully transitioned to "something else" there'd be no Mac platform today at all.

"Birds of a feather" and all of that--so it isn't surprising to see that Ellison and Jobs were terrific pals. I never cared for Ellison or Oracle for exactly the same reason I didn't care for Jobs and Apple--although to tell the truth I found Jobs actually a good deal less objectionable than Ellison.

But do I think Ellison adored Jobs with such tenacity that he'd buy SUN just to get java, just to drive Google out of business, as a kind of last-gasp tribute to his buddy Steve? Hell no... I don't believe, much as I may dislike him, that Ellison is that big a dunce. Rather, I think it was just the opposite motivation that inspired Ellison--he wants a nice piece of every Android phone sold, period. He reached the conclusion that his only shot at that was buying SUN, and it is the Android money he's after. If he is seen to back down on this suit then it will call in question his rationale for buying SUN in the first place--and put very big EGG all over Ellison's face. So he can't be seen as amenable to backing down.

Meh--my opinion, anyway... With these guys it is often about ego as much as it is about money, and they are often hyper competitive even with each other--so as a secondary inspiration for Ellison it could be that he wanted to "join" his buddy Steve in the smartphone business, only by a somewhat less innovative route....

But do I think Ellison adored Jobs with such tenacity that he'd buy SUN just to get java, just to drive Google out of business, as a kind of last-gasp tribute to his buddy Steve? Hell no...

Oh, I think he bought Sun to just to get MySQL and destroy that. Being able to destroy Android (or at least out-do BillG/MS in how much he can squeeze out of it per handset) is just a lot of icing.

Ellison saw that Sun wasn't properly monetizing Java and its intellectual property. Sun was leaving money on the table. That, I believe, is what both Ellison and Jobs both object to. They believe that not being as greedy a bastard as possible is a character flaw. Open source, from that perspective, is the single worst example of evil in the technological world.

Apparently you and Google's engineer have a big disagreement over whether they needed a license for Android.

Engineers aren't lawyers.

It's not a software engineers job to know whether their company needs a license. After all, much of what Google used was under an open source license. Clearly these engineers expressed a desire to retain Java technology, but that is where their expertise began and ended.

Hardly. The Java version which Google started from was built on a subset of the Apache Harmony Java implementation, licensed under an Apache license.

Ellison saw that Sun wasn't properly monetizing Java and its intellectual property. Sun was leaving money on the table. That, I believe, is what both Ellison and Jobs both object to. They believe that not being as greedy a bastard as possible is a character flaw. Open source, from that perspective, is the single worst example of evil in the technological world.

You've identified the overwhelming reason for what's happening here. This has absolutely nothing to do with Apple or Jobs - with the possible exception of Ellison sharing Job's and Gates' view that open source is a blight on their industry.

I do think there's another part to this, it's the reason Ellison probably won't settle, even as the case gets worse and worse for Oracle. That reason is envy.. Every time Ellison looks across the street (almost literally) and sees how much money the Google boys are taking in and how quickly they've outstripped him, I think he takes is personally.

Then there are the little things that have probably caused Ellison to hate Google. Google's arrangement with NASA giving them exclusive permission to land their corporate jets at the NASA airfield just minutes from Oracle HQ. An airfield Ellison cannot use.

You're right - mostly it's because Ellison is trying to wring every penny out of SUN's IP, no matter illegitimate the claims or how much damage it does to the former SUN products. Fortunately for Google, SUN clearly never had any plans to litigate over Google's use of the Java IP. This has left Oracle with a hugely difficult legal hurdle.

Given that Google can spend dollar for dollar with Oracle on legal, I think it's very unlikely that Google will lose this in any meaningful way.

Ellison saw that Sun wasn't properly monetizing Java and its intellectual property. Sun was leaving money on the table. That, I believe, is what both Ellison and Jobs both object to. They believe that not being as greedy a bastard as possible is a character flaw. Open source, from that perspective, is the single worst example of evil in the technological world.

You've identified the overwhelming reason for what's happening here. This has absolutely nothing to do with Apple or Jobs - with the possible exception of Ellison sharing Job's and Gates' view that open source is a blight on their industry.

I do think there's another part to this, it's the reason Ellison probably won't settle, even as the case gets worse and worse for Oracle. That reason is envy.. Every time Ellison looks across the street (almost literally) and sees how much money the Google boys are taking in and how quickly they've outstripped him, I think he takes is personally.

Then there are the little things that have probably caused Ellison to hate Google. Google's arrangement with NASA giving them exclusive permission to land their corporate jets at the NASA airfield just minutes from Oracle HQ. An airfield Ellison cannot use.

You're right - mostly it's because Ellison is trying to wring every penny out of SUN's IP, no matter illegitimate the claims or how much damage it does to the former SUN products. Fortunately for Google, SUN clearly never had any plans to litigate over Google's use of the Java IP. This has left Oracle with a hugely difficult legal hurdle.

Given that Google can spend dollar for dollar with Oracle on legal, I think it's very unlikely that Google will lose this in any meaningful way.

Just to be clear, if Google took liberties with Sun's IP and expected that Sun's reticence in litigating the issue would allow them to do what they will, I think some sort of penalty would be appropriate. I also think, however, that the justice system has a tendency to blunt the actions of folks who want their pound of flesh and who seek to use the civil justice system as their pitbulls. Oracle is adamant in attempting to bleed Google dry over what is, apparently, not as egregious as Oracle would have us believe.

Just to be clear, if Google took liberties with Sun's IP and expected that Sun's reticence in litigating the issue would allow them to do what they will, I think some sort of penalty would be appropriate.

And if Sun's CEO approved of Google's use, Google shouldn't have to pay Oracle a single penny.

Alfa_Spider wrote:

I also think, however, that the justice system has a tendency to blunt the actions of folks who want their pound of flesh and who seek to use the civil justice system as their pitbulls. Oracle is adamant in attempting to bleed Google dry over what is, apparently, not as egregious as Oracle would have us believe.

The words "not as egregious" suggest that there is at least some truth to Oracle's damage claims. From my read on the situation, I'm not at all certain there is any truth at all to their claims.

If Sun's leadership approved of Google's use, officially or not, Google might walk away completely free and clear of any significant damages. IANAL, but as I understand it, the estoppel and laches doctrines largely prevent companies from approving of a use, then later turning around and demanding damages.

A transfer of ownership doesn't have any bearing on this. If a given use was approved by a previous owner, later owners are severely restricted in damage claims. I believe Sun's actions have made Oracle's legal case a very difficult slog.

I'm not going to go so far to suggest Oracle will win no damages - if for no other reason than judges in cases like this tend to give each side a bit of what it wanted. I do think that if there are any damages awarded, it will be so tiny in respect to what Oracle had demanded, it will be seen as a massive loss for Oracle and a large victory for Google.

Just to be clear, if Google took liberties with Sun's IP and expected that Sun's reticence in litigating the issue would allow them to do what they will, I think some sort of penalty would be appropriate.

And if Sun's CEO approved of Google's use, Google shouldn't have to pay Oracle a single penny.

As long as Google can produce a license agreement that shows that, sure. Sadly I don't think a CEO's blog posting can constitute a legal license. Although I agree it should go really far in mitigating damages / extortion from Oracle.

Just to be clear, if Google took liberties with Sun's IP and expected that Sun's reticence in litigating the issue would allow them to do what they will, I think some sort of penalty would be appropriate.

And if Sun's CEO approved of Google's use, Google shouldn't have to pay Oracle a single penny.

As long as Google can produce a license agreement that shows that, sure. Sadly I don't think a CEO's blog posting can constitute a legal license. Although I agree it should go really far in mitigating damages / extortion from Oracle.

Actually it hasn't been getting much attention the pre-trial wranglings. One of the bigger problems with this defense is that Google will have to show Reliance. That is, that they relied on on Sun's approval before they developed Dalvik, and the problem is that Schwatz's blog statement comes long after Google developed Dalvik, not to mention that other Sun executives were publicly critical of it at the same time, like there was some good cop-bad cop action going on. It's going to be hard to show Reliance since Google went ahead on Dalvik right after the failed $100M 3-year Java license deal. But even still, Schwartz's blog isn't looking to be a significant part of Google's defense, and despite what the Android fans in these threads believe and insist, they would be foolish to rely on it. Their lawyers aren't anywhere near that dumb. It's more of a kitchen sink argument.

In the end it's all going to boil down to what a jury decides, and in that respect I think the Lindholm email is going to be deadly for Google's case, because it's going to cut through all the technical mumbo-jumbo. Google's been desperate to have it withheld from the record and has failed on each of its 9 motions to that effect so far. They do have an appeal on that which goes above Alsup's head, but their argument (that it's privileged work product) is a weak one. If they can somehow manage to have it excluded from the evidence, then the whole case shifts dramatically in Google's favor.

Alsup's a pretty fair judge and has spanked both sides publicly for their shenanigans so far. If I had to guess right now I'd bet Oracle loses on the copyright infringement phase of the trial but wins on some of the patents. I don't think the damages will be anything like what Oracle wants, but unless all their patent claims get invalidated by the USPTO meanwhile, I'd be surprised if Oracle doesn't get what they want most, and that's the injunction.

Steve Jobs, to me, always seemed like a profoundly negative person--he was constantly complaining and moaning that somebody was eating, or trying to eat, his piece of cake. I think that's the reason the Mac has remained in the ~5% world-wide market share bracket all of these years--decapitating the fledgling Mac clone companies before they could get started and really growing, tying OS X exclusively to Apple-branded hardware, were and are among his chief "negativisms" for the Mac as a platform--in my opinion, of course.

The Clone Wars failed because Apple wanted the clone makers to expand the Mac market share, while Apple themselves held onto the high end where most of the profit was. But it turned out the clone makers (especially Power Computing) started giving Apple some real competition in the high end. The market didn't expand significantly, and they were fighting for the same sales.

Apple has always preferred to make fewer products, at higher prices and profit margins. They're quite content to < 10% of the market, as long as they're smack dab in the high profit, premium part of the market.

To expand on what you said, Steve would rather lick the icing from the cake, and leave the rest for everybody else.

In the latest order, he complains that Oracle has twice "advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers."

Why was this never challenged during the Great Suing of the 2000's by the MPAA and RIAA? Juries were handing out multi-hundred thousand dollar verdicts in favor of Big Content left and right. This is all despite the fact that evidence of actual monetary damages to said companies is debatable.

Granted, I think the corporations were going after the seeders more than the downloaders. After all, the seeders are mostly comparable to someone selling bootleg DVDs, despite making no money off the act. That still doesn't justify $100,000+ in damages for sharing a few videos.